tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN June 13, 2010 1:00pm-2:00pm EDT
transparency and acure voters nothing will be swept under the rug on my watch. he is willing to auction it off if anyone is willing to pay. thanks for watching. for our international viewers "world report" is next. for everyone else, "fareed zakaria gps" starts right now. this is "gps" the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. those of you who watch this show regularly know that i have not really said anything about the bp oil spill. there's no denying that it's an enormous issue, a tragedy, but i thought it was chiefly a domestic story and i didn't have that much value to add. watching the coverage of it recently, i think i have something to say. have we all gone crazy? i don't mean you, i mean us, the
media. in dealing with a serious problem involving technical breakdown, engineering malfunctions, environmental fallout, regulatory mishaps, the media has decided to hone in on one central issue above all others, presidential emotion. the overriding need of the hour we have decided is not a cleanup plan, not a regulatory overhaul, not a new energy policy, but the image of the president visibly enraged. take a look at these clips put together by ben from "the huffington post." >> in this oil crisis the president's critics are out in force claiming he's too unemotional. >> president obama is being criticized for not showing enough emotion in response to this gulf oil leak. >> is it time for the president to show emotion. >> we want to know what you think, should president obama show more emotion? >> we've been talking a lot about whether or not the president is responding, emoting enough. >> not showing enough emotion. >> what do you think, should
president obama be shoring more emotion? >> what do you think about more emotion. >> think president bush at ground zero with the firemen. >> those are poignant moments forever 'em blazened in people's heads. >> it's head versus heart. this is a heady president and people want heart. >> the american people want to feel that the president is connecting emotionally. >> what he had on when he was standing on the shoreline there. he had on fancy pants and a fancy shirt. look, he should have had on something that looked like he was a little bit more at the scene. >> at least i want the guy feeling. i want to feel his pain with my pain. i'm not saying he's not there, it just doesn't emote. >> a lot of people have said that president obama, a, should have stayed here longer, maybe spent the weekend, but at least expressed more emotion. >> if there's any one time to go off, this is it. >> and what exactly is the point of all this? what purpose would be served by having the president scream or cry or whatever it is he's supposed to do to show emotion?
would it plug the hole? the truth is that what's happening in the gulf is a terrible tragedy, but there is very little the federal government can do in the short term to actually stop the spill. this whole discussion is a terrible example of how the media can trivialize political discussion. the presidency is a serious job. the most serious job in the country. and here we are asking the man to dress the part, to play act emotions, to give us satisfaction by just doing something, even if it's all phony stuff just designed to give the impression of action. and we've managed to succeed. we've managed to force the president to cancel his trip to asia, demean himself by trash talking about the ceo of british petroleum, hold lots of pointless meetings and press conferences, have admirals give make work briefings. the federal government is now consumed with pretending that it is doing something about a situation it actually can't do much about. meanwhile, the economy is
showing dangerous signs of slowing, the european debt crisis is getting worse, our allies in asia are outraged that the president has cancelled his trip once more, the chinese military is flexing its muscles, and iran and north korea continue to defy the world. but thank goodness the president is now talking about kicking some ass. anyway, now that i have emoted in public, let me tell you about the show we have. we have an exclusive and fascinating conversation with a man known as the brain behind neo conservatism. paul wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense during the bush years on obama's foreign policy, israel and the first in-depth accounting that he has ever given of his actions during the iraq war. then an interview with the deputy foreign minister of israel, who explains his country's actions on the turkish flotilla affair. and finally, the riveting story of neda, the young woman who was shot by the iranian government
one year ago. and now the former deputy secretary of defense, former president of the world bank, paul wolfowitz. welcome to the program. >> nice to be here, thank you. >> on iraq, do you think that the obama administration is effectively following the bush administration policy on iraq, that there has been no significant change? >> i think there is some reason to be concerned. i think henry kissinger put it this way a while back, that leaving iraq is not a policy and sometimes it sounds as though that's the beginning and end of it. but i think that's not the way things will evolve. certainly i hope not. iraq is going to be very imperfect, but i think it is much better than the alternatives and i think if we work with them, it will be a better country. and it will contribute to a more
stable persian gulf, more prosperous persian gulf so i hope that's where we're headed. >> i readfranks' memoirs. he said on the eve of the iraq war he said to the deputy secretary of defense, that's you, you pay attention to the day after, i'll pay attention to the day of, implying that you were the man who was overseeing iraq after the war ended. >> well, that's not true, i wasn't in charge of anything. in fact if you look at the record of where the planning for post-saddam iraq was, it was initially based in the white house and then eventually it was handed to cpa. >> which is the coalition -- >> occupation government. as a matter of fact if i had been in charge of planning we wouldn't have had an occupation government. i think that was wrong. i think we should have done what we did in afghanistan, which is to create some kind of
provisional iraqi authority with some degree of representation. i know it would be imperfect, but it would at least have a little more legitimacy than putting in an american. >> you were opposed to appointing bremer? >> well, we moved beyond that. we gave up on the idea of a provisional government even before we got there and then we had this idea of i think it was called iraqi interim authority and even that was superseded by this occupation regime, which i think was damaging. it took us 14 months to get back to an iraqi interim government and things, i think, proceeded reasonably -- imperfectly but reasonably well from that point and better. i don't want to have a fight with tommy franks, but one of the things we argued about and i don't remember this conversation but it may have been his
annoyance that i thought we should be training for iraqi forces, not because we needed them to fight but because it was important to have iraqis participate in the fight and because it was important to have iraqis with whom we had experience and could judge to help build a free iraqi army. and he was opposed to that completely. so -- >> but isn't it fair to say that your boss, donald rumsfeld, was the person who wanted to sort of get in and out as quickly as possible and not engage in nation building? deputy secretary, did you agree with rumsfeld on that idea of a light footprint and get in and out. >> it wasn't just rumsfeld that thought this. franks thought this. john abizaid thought this and it wasn't just get in and get out, but it was hand over authority as quickly as possible to iraqis. and the experience in northern iraq in 1993 i think -- sorry, in 1991 at the end of the first gulf war somewhat reinforced
that view. i think the thing that no one counted on was that when we got to baghdad, saddam and his people didn't stop fighting. there's a lot of evidence to suggest that's when they planned a real fight to begin because they knew they couldn't win a conventional war but thought they could do enormous damage and maybe defeat us with an urban guerrilla war. it's not so much about nation-building, it's about how you fight an insurgency. >> but it was clear that you had chaos all over iraq, not just in baghdad, and that the number of american troops there was not enough, at least certainly that's what general petraeus would say and that it was until we sent in sufficient forces, iraq was falling apart. >> fareed, this is a long discussion which we could take several hours. iraq wasn't falling apart, for example, in southern iraq when i visited the marines in july of '03 and they were sending people home. it wasn't falling apart up in northern iraq where petraeus was
there with a significant force. but the most important thing to remember about the surge that has just in the last few years really turned things around, the surge wasn't simply about sending more troops, and i think people who know this much better than i would say it was a change in strategy which then required more troops, somewhat more troops. not 300,000 troops. i think we reached 170,000 or so at the height of the surge, but it was focusing on this idea that protecting the population is the key to defeating an insurgency. will there be debates for a long time to come about why things went the way they did in iraq. with respect to the past, i still think the most important thing is if we hadn't had the kind of insurgency we had, the idea of light footprint, handing things over quickly -- by the way, i think creating a -- either keeping the iraqi -- well, we couldn't keep it. calling back the iraqi army or more rapidly creating a new army
would have been a key part of that. but encountering an insurgency, you needed a counterinsurgency strategy and more troops going in without a counterinsurgency solution wouldn't have worked. i'm happy to discuss history at great length but i really think as a country, and maybe this sounds self-serving coming from me, but i think as a country we need to look ahead. i think we should stick with iraq. now, obviously i'd like to hope that 50 years from now iraq will look as big a success story as south korea. i don't know that. there's no way to know what the long term will be. but i do think we can know that it will come out better if we stay actively engaged and support the people who want to build a tolerant, progressive society there. >> and i think the point you make is fair, but i also think you are a very prominent statesman in a democracy and there is some sense of accountability so i want to ask
you in a sense a bottom line question. you were asked again by a senate committee how much will this cost and you said iraq will be able to pay for its own reconstruction relatively easily. in fact that part didn't work out that way, so looking out -- >> wait, wait. i was asked how much will the war cost. i said we have no idea how much the war will cost. i said iraq can, unlike afghanistan, iraq is not going to be a permanent ward of the international community. >> you said we are dealing with a country that can finance its reconstruction and relatively soon. that's the exact quote. >> after the end of conflict. this war went on, in fact to some extent it still goes on today. at this point i think iraq is largely, i don't know the numbers now. okay, i was somewhat -- the sense was the war wouldn't last for six, seven years and that this was a country with substantial oil resources. >> but what i'm trying to get at is a larger question, which is looking back from where we are
now in 2010, you know, the united states has spent over a trillion dollars in direct expenditures in iraq on the war and the post-war, however you want to describe it. two and a half million iraqis by the u.s. estimates have fled the country. most have not come back. then there's the number who have been killed, we don't know. you think it was worth it? >> look, how you answer whether it was worth it, i mean i don't know how you ask someone who's lost a loved one or who's been seriously maimed whether it was worth it. that's a -- i couldn't answer that for them. i do think that we're better off and the world is better off without that regime there. >> and we will be back with paul wolfowitz in a moment. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 i thought investment firms were there
tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to help with my investments. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so where's that help when i need it? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if i could change one thing... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 we'd all get a ton of great advice tdd# 1-800-345-2550 just for being a client. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 i mean, shouldn't i be able to talk about my money tdd# 1-800-345-2550 without it costing me a fortune? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if i had my way, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investment firms would be falling all over themselves tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to help me with my investments. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 (announcer) at charles schwab, investors rule. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 are you ready to rule?
[ car door closing ] [ male announcer ] time tot! check your air conditioning? come to meineke now and get a free ac system check. meineke. we have the coolest customers. we are back with the former deputy of defense, former world bank president, paul wolfowitz. in 2002 there was a very large rally organized by the american jewish establishment in support of israel. there was the fear that the administration might be trying to put pressure on israel.
you went to the rally and spoke to show solidarity, to say that the bush administration supported it, but you then said innocent palestinians are suffering and dying as well and it is critical that we recognize and acknowledge this fact. you got booed. do you worry that it has become difficult, you're jewish, for american jews to acknowledge the suffering of palestinians? >> well, you know, it's interesting. i think you really drew the wrong conclusion there. i said what i said very deliberately because i thought it was important to say it. my impression -- it was a huge crowd. it was a little hard to judge. my impression was it was a noisy minority in the front who did the booing. more importantly, and i'm sure about this, as soon as i stepped down from the podium, the nobel laureate came up to me and the deputy foreign minister of israel came up to me and each of
them said thank you for saying that, it needed to be said. you know, when i think about how the administration now is dealing with netanyahu, i think they're making a big mistake because the settlement issue is one that divides israelis. we ought to have a thought of israelis sympathizing with us, but somehow the way it's been handled, i've seen polls that suggest more than 90% of israelis think this administration is hostile to israel. that's not smart diplomacy. i would submit a very different example. during the gulf war in 1991, i was the undersecretary of defense at that time. there was a debate inside our administration not about whether to keep israel out of the war but how do you do it. one point of view said we need to tell them this is our war, you stay out of it, don't mess it up for us. another point of view, which i shared, was wait a minute, you have to recognize, and i think
that's what needs to be recognized today, is the thing that unites israelis is concern about security and you might even call it paranoia about the hou hostility of their neighbors. we need to embrace them closely, say we care about your security and we will do everything possible to deal about the threat from iraq. israel was attacked for fwo54 d with scuds from iraq and did not retaliate. i think the key here is not to unite all israelis on resistance to the united states but to convince them that this administration, like other administrations, really means it when it says it's concerned about israeli security and let's approach this issue in a more cooperative way. >> thank you, paul wolfowitz. >> pleasure being here. thanks, fra reed. >> and we will be back. i don't think that we need to apologize.
here, no way israel will apologize. it's not for israel to apologize, but quite the contrary. but with advair, i'm breathing better. so i can join the fun at my family barbeque. (announcer) for people with copd, including chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or both, great news. advair helps significantly improve lung function. while nothing can reverse copd, advair is different from most other medications because it contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator, working together to help you breathe better. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems.
tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. i'm glad you came, grandma. oh, me too. if copd is still making it hard to breathe, ask your doctor if including advair will help improve your lung function for better breathing. (announcer) get your first full prescription free and save on refills.
turkey's foreign minister about the turkish flotilla affair. now to hear the israeli side of the story, i welcome israel's deputy foreign manager, danny ayalon. >> pleased to be here. >> do you believe there were groups on the turkish flotilla had to ties to terrorist organizations? >> absolutely. there were six altogether. five were taken into the shore unscathed with no resistance. they are really peace activists. unfortunately on the turkish ship, we saw two types. out of 675 people on the ship, about 600 were peace activists, i would say naive peace activists. about 75 were mercenaries. we found the money on their bodies, 10,000 apiece, dollars apiece. they were associated with al qaeda and other terror
organizations. they are graduates of afghanistan or iraq. they had a hierarchy, they were arranged in a military type or paramilitary organization. they were well equipped and they were ambushing our soldiers. they occupied the higher deck, the top deck to wait for soldiers. >> and they had ties to al qaeda you said? >> absolutely, absolutely. and, by the way, all those who were killed were hitting our soldiers in the purpose of killing our soldiers or kidnap them to negotiate some kind of a deal to go into gaza. you see -- >> you think they were trying to take israeli soldiers hostage? >> absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, and put them in an inner cabin. >> the weapons they had at least from the videos were slingshots and sticks. when you say well armed -- >> well, they had hatchets and
they had iron rods and they had axes and knives. also, it's not inconceivable they had firearms, which they threw overboard. this is being checked now. >> why did israel reject the call for an international inquiry from the u.n. secretary general? because the turkish foreign minister says it's because you don't want an impartial investigation of the facts. >> no, not at all, fareed. we would be very much welcoming an inquiry. it's our interest to expose all the facts. we have nothing to fear on the country. and this is why i think what we will go for is an impartial inquiry with -- we will welcome any international observers to check, to verify the impartiality. we're very proud, as you know, with our robust and independent judiciary and its credibility and its reputation. >> but it won't be an international inquiry, it will be an israeli government
inquiry? >> i think that everybody understands and knows that israel is quite capable of investigating itself. we have done it ample times. but out of the ordinary we would welcome some observers because we want to show this due process of the law in complete impartiality and transparency and i'm sure that once all the details are revealed, there will be great embarrassment for those who arranged this flotilla. >> turkey was one of only two nations who voted against the sanctions on iran this week in the u.n. security council. are turkish-israeli relations really on a downward spiral right now? >> well, i cannot tell you at this moment. obviously things are are not going well between israel and turkey, but it's not because of any israeli activity or any israeli policy. quite the contrary. we're still biting our lips and we're still trying to be very responsible. israel-turkey relations is very, very important.
it's very important to the united states, it's very important to the middle east, it's very important to both countries, turkey and israel, and i do hope that some sense will get back into the relationship. we are more than willing to continue the way we used to in the past. >> when i asked the turks, when others asked them, will turkish-israeli relations improve, they say it's up to israel. i think they are looking for some kind of an apology, some kind of -- something where they feel you were the ones who boarded that boat, you were the ones who attacked their flotilla, you need to take a move. what move is israel willing to make to try and repair relations with turkey? >> i don't think that we need to apologize. on the contrary. when we need to apologize or when we feel like we need to apologize, we have no problems of doing it. but here no way for israel to apologize. it's not for israel to
apologize, but quite the contrary. >> do you mean it's for turkey to apologize? >> well, it's for those who organized the flotilla, whether it's the ihh, which i told you has known ties with terror organizations, global jihad and al qaeda. i think it's -- they need to check themselves and those who supported them need to check themselves. >> what about the block aide of gaza itself. this has come under a lot of criticism. tony blair is calling for the end of the blockade, there are more and more governments talking about it. when i look at the list of prohibited items, i read them, cilantro, jam, chocolates, i realize this week perhaps in response to all that outcry, cilantro and jam are off the list, but why, why are is there such a tight blockade that prevents so many food items from getting into gaza? there seems to be something inhuman about it. >> you're absolutely right and we are correcting it. there is no reason not to have a
full array of food to the gazans and we are making sure this will we be the case. however, the primary issue is the blockade in order to prevent the hamas from rearming itself to the teeth from, you know, and they get all these smuggled arms from iran and hezbollah and syria. people forget, but only a year and a half ago, less than a year and a half ago, a million people, israelis, population from the south, were subject to this terrible terror of intermittent missile launching on our markets, on our schools, on our workshops, on our farms. this could not be. and in order to make sure that we will not need to resort to more violence, we need this blockade and unless and until hamas changes its course of action. >> dana ayalon, thank you as
if it fits it ships anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. that is easy. best news i've heard all day! i'm soooo amped! i mean not amped. excited. well, sort of amped. really kind of in between. have you ever thought about decaf? do you think that would help? yeah. priority mail flat rate box shipping starts at $4.95, only from the postal service.
and now for our "what in the world" segment. it was the death seen and heard around the world. because of modern technology, hers was one of the most widely witnessed deaths in all of human history. neda's murder galvanized her revoluti revolution, both within iran and without. that much is known. but who was neda? and what led her to that terrible moment? a fascinating new hbo documentary called "for neda" explores those very questions.
in the film for the first time we hear neda's mother speak. >> translator: from the age of three, she never accepted control. she fought with the school authorities not to wear a jador and she won that battle. >> but though neda continued to fight for her rights throughout her life, she was not solely political. her family says she loved to dance, always had a smile, and had a wanderlust which led to her job as a tour guide in turkey. but all of that was put on hold a year ago when everything changed in iran, a year ago today. that's when iran erupted and neda was there from the start. her mother joined her at one of the protests, and she recalls an encounter that she and neda had there. it was with some female members of iran's pro-military.
>> very politely one of these women asked neda, dear, please don't come out looking so beautiful. neda smiled with her beautiful teeth and said am i beautiful? and they said you are very, very lovely. do us a favor and don't come out, because the men target beautiful girls and they will shoot you. >> eight days after the elections, tensions were reaching a peak as were arrests, beatings and killings. neda's parents begged her not to go out. her answer, if i don't go out, who will? so she went. her mother reached her by phone that afternoon. >> i pleaded with her to come back home. she said, mom, i will, don't worry. >> but of course she didn't. a doctor standing nearby noticed her. >> i was really looking at her with admiration because she was a woman, a young woman, so
courageous, i was dying out of fear out there and she was just moving around, shouting and that was why i noticed her. then the anti-riot police took up their batons and just rushed towards the people, so people just scattered. >> and in the chaos that ensued, shots rang out. >> and then we hear the blast. i turn back, looked at neda who was standing about a meter away from me and i saw her looking up in astonishment and surprise at the blood that was gushing out of her chest. and i ran towards her. from my impression she was -- it was the major blood vessel coming out of the heart. no one could save her. >> iran has never charged anyone in neda's murder.
instead, the regime has accused everyone from the cia to the bbc of killing her. and the regime apparently doesn't want people to see this hbo documentary. when the voice of america tried to beam the film into iran earlier this month, they received many complaints. some people saying their signal had been jammed, others saying that their electricity had been cut off during the airing. many brave people inside and outside iran continue to try to bring this film to the iranian people. for the rest of you, watching it will be easier. "for neda" airs monday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on hbo. if you live outside the u.s., check your listings or go to hbo.com. blaming it all on the west, check. you know, deploying their massive state propaganda machine against the green movement, check. because of one word,
imagination and reality have merged. because of one word, a new generation-- a fifth generation-- of fighter aircraft has been born. because of one word, america's air dominance for the next forty years is assured. that one word... is how. "know it all" made a cup of premium starbucks via. "know it all" shared it with "single and loving it!" who made a cup the next morning for "ladies man" as he was rushing out the back door. he shared it with "blondes have more fun" and "fiery redhead," who, after finding out about each other, shared starbucks via with their new boyfriends, "firemen keep it hot" and "drummers rock," who called his friend "know it all," who said he already knew about it. premium starbucks via ready brew. now available wherever you buy groceries. ♪
hello, i'm fredricka whitfield and here's what's making news right now. three people are still missing two days after a flash flood hit the albert pike recreation area in western arkansas. the search continues today. the official death toll stands at 18. president barack obama leaves for the gulf coast tomorrow for a two-day trip. the white house says he will review efforts to contain and clean up bp's massive oil spill. today on cnn's "state of the union" alabama governor bob riley talked about the spill's
impact on his state. >> i don't know how many people are going to be affected, but the state of alabama is being negatively affected in our tax revenues, in our add valorem base across the board and it's going to have to be taken care of either by bp or someone else. >> president obama will address the nation on the oil disaster and that's tuesday evening. those are the top stories. more "fareed zakaria gps" in a minute. her. this. lives. how ? by bringing together... information. ... people ... ... machines ... ... systems ... ideas... verizon helps businesses worldwide... including fortune 500 companies... find and achieve... better. better. better. better.
some government brutality has sapped its death. joining me to talk about this is my colleague at "newsweek" who knows all about the brutality of the iranian government. he was imprisoned on false charges for four months following last year's demonstrations. a iranian american writer begs to differ. and also a journalist, iranian born, who has covered the middle east extensively. welcome to all of you. you were just in iran a few months ago. what is your sense of what the mood -- i don't want to say on the street because that's such a varied things. >> it's a big street. >> but among the people you know who were perhaps sympathetic to the green revolution, are they disheartened? >> well, the green movement, i think there are some people who were disheartened, yes, definitely because of the crackdown, friends who ended up in jail, so on and so forth, and just the government's ability to squash any protests whatsoever. so it becomes an attitude of why
bother, why should i go out on the streets and demonstrate, i'm not going to get anywhere, the government is powerful, it's in power, nothing is going to change. there's a little bit of that but there's still the resentment. there is a resentment among many people, sympathizers of the green movement and even people in the conservative camp. when you talk to certain people who an't going to be very vocal necessarily except for with a handful of a few exceptions aren't going to be very vocal in their criticism of the government or islamic system but are critical of what's going on certainly. >> green movement was but one question only, where is my vote. that question meant where are my rights as citizens of this country and that question has not gone away. the manifestations of that demand has gone away because it's suppressed by the government, but the gap between the people and the government is widening and people, more people are asking that question than before now. >> absolutely.
i'm sorry to jump in, but i think he's absolutely right. the issue was never about a revolution. i think we were somewhat guilty in the west of pro claiming it a new revolution, whether it was the twitter revolution or facebook revolution or whatever you want to call it. the green movement actually started before the election. i was there. it was the green movement then, which was to move reform to the government and to the islamic republic. when that didn't happen, it became where is my vote because many people believed that their vote had not been counted. subsequent to that it became about i think constitutional rights and not just the vote. but civil rights, as they exist under the current constitution of iran, which allows many things, such as freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate. these are things that are told to the people. people understand this. the freedom of the press is something that is your right. it is a right under our constitution of the right of the people. >> so it's there in theory but in practice it's denied. >> in practice it's clearly denied and to greater or lesser
extents over time. >> i think the green movement did start out as a where is my vote movement, but i think it went beyond that and i think it went beyond the generalized are you sentiment that he was referring to. as with any of these kind of movements, it depends on who you ask. some people will say i'm green because i want an end to this system entirely. some people will say i'm green because i want my vote back. so it really depends on who you ask. the government of the islamic republic pulled out the old authorize tear january state playbook. silencing and intimidating your opponents, jailing them, including neutral observers, like our colleague, check. employing violence on protesters, check. blaming it all on the west, check. deploying their massive state propaganda machine against the green movement, check. so this was a very well orchestrated crackdown against a green movement that -- to begin
with. but is there some truth and you lived in iran, some people say the regime has some support whether it's in the it's in the rural areas, whether among the poor, in the slavik communities, but the vote even if it was rigged, this was a pretty 50/50 country? how would you react to that? >> it's 50/50, but i think if you divide different high-ranking officials in iran and the political figures, i think ayatollah khomeini has more supporters than any other official. >> the current supreme leader. >> the current supreme leader. he does not have the majority, but he's -- the people who support him have more money because they're in power and they have more access to arms. and i agree, but this question that where is my vote, it started before the election and i think the bottom line here is
about the supreme leader. many iranians, and i can say that the majority of the iranians, even if they don't verbalize, they do not want to be part of this that the supreme leader wants to be. they want to be part of a nation. and this is not something that started last year. >> part of some big islamic nation. >> big revolutionary movement. they're iranians. they want to be iranians. >> they don't want to be led by what khomeini wants them to be. they want to be part of a nation, part of an islamic republic. >> what about the other leaders? is it fair to say that maybe the green movement has not been as well led as it could have been? >> it depends on -- i think the whole thing took them by surprise, from the election itself to the protests, so i don't think the green movement had a leadership that had a specific goal beyond initially winning an election and governing and secondarily to that, after the election, to
actually try and see if they could overthrow or overturn the results of the election. so there wasn't this leadership that sat there thinking of plotting, figuring out what to do. so they were caught by surprise. it's unfair to say that they're -- it would be fair to say that they haven't been quite what some people imagined them to be. i think the expectations were probably much higher. >> was it a mistake? >> well, if you want to believe that there should have been a revolution, there should have been an overthrow of the system, then it was a mistake. but mousavi himself didn't believe that at that time and i don't think he still believes that. >> a former prime minister of the regime itself. >> in many ways mu vi was an accidental revolutionary. the differences that were made early on in 1979 were not appropriate, i thought, because in 1979 you had a leader, ayatollah khomeini, who was uncompromising and also had the benefit of being in exile, so he wasn't in danger. >> many years. >> many years. he said the shah must go. mousavi was saying we need to reform the system.
also in 1979 you had the shah of iran who was generally weak and indecisive, and he stood up in front of the television cameras and said to the people of iran, as the protests gathered, i heard your call, i heard your revolution. ayatollah khomeini, by contrast, stood before the television cameras and said i will defeat you. >> so a strange way people sort of think otherwise but you're aing the shah was actually too accommodating and the current leader much more -- >> he showed weakness. i think every one of these leaders now in power in iran were revolutionaries then. they were fighting the shah. they watched every move that the shah made and realized where they were successful. >> i think what mass maziar said is very important, very few people make abroad, certainly, and that that the supreme leader, regardless of where he's moved to politically or i'd logically, because have a tremendous amount of support. when i say "tremendous," who
knows what it is, 30% of the people, 60% of the people, what he thinks or his people think, 80%, 90% of the people, whatever he has, that percentage is well taken care of, they have the guns, and they number in the millions. and they are not going to give up. >> this is not north korea. >> this is not north korea. no. >> all minorities with access to the guns and money can maintain power. and even in the khatami years -- >> the reformist president. >> the reformist president. the conservatives were polling getting about 30% of the vote even in those years. >> and we will be watching for it. thank you, gentlemen. thank you very much. we will be right back. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if it was up to me? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 investment firms wouldn't even dream of overcharging people. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 in fact, they'd spend all of their time dreaming up ways tdd# 1-800-345-2550 to give us more for our money. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 i guess i'd just like to see a little more give
now for our "question of the week." here's what i want to know. on this issue of the oil spill and the president's emotions, do you agree with me that it has nothing to do with solving the oil spill? or would you like to see him express more emotion? let me know what you think, and feel free to disagree with me. don't forget to subscribe to our podcast on itunes. if you do, you'll never miss a show and it doesn't cost anything. as i do every week, i want to recommend a book. this one is called "more money than god." it's a wonderfully written history of hedge funds, those mysterious wall street institutions practically known for minting money.
one example from the book. in 2006, goldman sachs ceo lloyd blankfein made $54 million. that same here, the 25th highest earner in the hedge fund industry made $240 million. hedge funds are where all the brightest and best of wall street have been migrating in droves. if you want to understand the nature of modern finance, read this book. and now, for "the last look." file this one under "isn't the internet amazing?" so i'm just back from shanghai, a city i've been visiting pretty regularly for almost 20 years, and i was looking for a way to show you the changes i've seen there. i found it on this website, skyscrapercity.com. this is the financial center of shanghai today. and this, believe it or not, is the same area in 1990 just 20 years ago. it's called pudong. take a lk again. ex